Of course, you might want to discuss it with the scientists and scholars themselves. To that end, comments will be allowed on selected articles. All comments are held for moderation. The debate over evolution and intelligent design attracts all kinds, including those who detract from the conversation by their obnoxious behavior. In order to maintain a higher level of discourse, we will not publish comments that use foul language, ad hominem attacks, threats, or are otherwise uncivil.

Emphasis in the original.

Having looked through the top 5 articles, I have not found one with comments allowed. We shall see.

If I had an irony meter, it might have hit elevenses on that one. Can these yoiks possibly manage to avoid an own-goal with this stuff? Or are the deafened by the sound of so many points whizzing over their heads?

The MadPanda, FCD

--------------"No matter how ridiculous the internet tough guy, a thorough mocking is more effective than a swift kick to the gentleman vegetables with a hobnailed boot" --Louis

Casey Luskin doesn't like it that the Elsberry and Shallit 2003 essay got edited and published in Synthese. Casey says it is "extremely out-of-date". Casey has evidence! Follow his link to a list of "peer-reviewed papers [published] in recent years", Casey says!

I'd like to leave a comment for Casey. But EN&V hasn't seen fit to open comments on Casey's rant.

Casey Luskin doesn't like it that the Elsberry and Shallit 2003 essay got edited and published in Synthese. Casey says it is "extremely out-of-date". Casey has evidence! Follow his link to a list of "peer-reviewed papers [published] in recent years", Casey says!

I'd like to leave a comment for Casey. But EN&V hasn't seen fit to open comments on Casey's rant.

At this point, just finding a thread at EN&V with open comments will have to count for something. It looks like nobody wants to go first.

You can comment on the the post on Flannery's book on Wallace (currently 16 comments, two by Luskin, another two by O'Leary). Comments are moderated. Other threads including the one on Synthese still don't allow comments.

All comments are held for moderation. The debate over evolution and intelligent design attracts all kinds, including those who detract from the conversation by their obnoxious behavior. In order to maintain a higher level of discourse, we will not publish comments that use foul language, ad hominem attacks, threats, or are otherwise uncivil.

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

You can comment on the the post on Flannery's book on Wallace (currently 16 comments, two by Luskin, another two by O'Leary). Comments are moderated. Other threads including the one on Synthese still don't allow comments.

All comments are held for moderation. The debate over evolution and intelligent design attracts all kinds, including those who detract from the conversation by their obnoxious behavior. In order to maintain a higher level of discourse, we will not publish comments that use foul language, ad hominem attacks, threats, or are otherwise uncivil.

I have posted the following. Let's see if it appears:

Quote

"It all sounds impressive until Pinker tries to actually make a case for any of this. The narrative quickly degenerates into a trivial recounting of what humans currently do and then into a collection of speculative scenarios about how certain primordial hominids "might have" done this or "perhaps" did that."

Wallace's claim too may be characterized as a recounting of what humans currently do coupled with the assertion that these capabilities cannot have arisen by gradations. The argument for this assertion inheres in characterizations of these activities, e.g. their level of abstraction, and the follow-on claim that lesser forms of such capabilities cannot have been useful to our hominid ancestors, and therefore cannot have arisen step-wise. This is a conceptual argument, not an empirical one - which is why it is characterized as a "paradox." †

When a conceptual claim is made, a conceptual response may be sufficient to dispute that claim. Wallace - and now ID proponents - argue not that these things did not happen (broadly an empirical claim), but that they cannot have happened †- that to assert otherwise is to invoke a paradox (a conceptual claim). To refute an argument of this kind all one need only show that such events can have happened - that the claim is not in fact paradoxical. That is the level of Pinker's argument (as you summarize it here). Qualifiers such as "may have been," "may serve as," "perhaps," "may connect" are appropriate when mounting a conceptual response to a conceptual claim. †

That response alone does not amount to science (nor is Wallace's claim science), nor does it follow from the argument that events can have happened that they did indeed happen. The science lies in the very hard work of formulating hypotheses regarding human cognitive evolution that are testable - a difficult proposition given that the hypothesized cognitive attainments occurred tens of thousands to millions of years in the past, and by their very nature can have left no physical traces other than cultural artifacts. The most interesting work in this field, which is far from new, draws not just upon characterizations of the skills in question but also upon predictions arising from a "triangulation" between findings in cognitive science, primatology, and human developmental psychology (ie. the unfolding of cognitive abilities in individual children). Perhaps we can never attain a high level of confidence regarding particular hypotheses. But a conceptual response alone can refute the bare conceptual claim that such hypotheses cannot be correct.

--------------Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."- David Foster Wallace

"Here‚Äôs a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."- Barry Arrington

Of course this comment by Egnor follows his venom-laced rant on how the pejorative use of "Darwinist" is justified because it pisses off the atheistic biologists. †I don't suppose "IDiot" would be likewise justified?

--------------The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein †(H/T, JAD)
If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

Of course this comment by Egnor follows his venom-laced rant on how the pejorative use of "Darwinist" is justified because it pisses off the atheistic biologists. †I don't suppose "IDiot" would be likewise justified?

From their comment policy

Quote

In order to maintain a higher level of discourse, we willnot publish comments that use foul language, ad hominem attacks, threats, or are otherwise uncivil.

I guess the egnoramus comments are considered civil, and not ad hominem. But I imagine that if someone opined that ID proponentsist comments contained "venom", such a comment would never be allowed.

--------------Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mindHas been obligated from the beginningTo create an ordered universeAs the only possible proof of its own inheritance. † † † † † † † † † † † † - Pattiann Rogers

"Pinker is invoking the ďcognitive nicheĒ as an explanatory mechanism for the human mind, and as such it is surely reasonable to expect some empirical evidence on its behalf"

I agree. As I stated below, "That response alone does not amount to science (nor is Wallace's claim science), nor does it follow from the argument that events can have happened that they did indeed happen. The science lies in the very hard work of formulating hypotheses regarding human cognitive evolution that are testable."

As I also stated below, some extremely interesting work is being done on these very difficult questions, for example at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, and by researchers such as Tomasello, Call, Povinelli, Hare, and many others. Hard won specific, testable hypotheses regarding the nature and evolution of primate theory of mind (a pillar in the foundation of human cognition) are being addressed through thoroughly experimental means (see Brian Hare's elegant work on the distribution among primates of an understanding that one's conspecifics 'see' and act upon what they have seen). The results have unmistakeable importance for the evolution of social-cognitive intelligence and the foundations of many of the human capabilities we both admire. Further, the cross-fertilized work in developmental psychology stimulated by this perspective has yielded significant, unexpected discoveries regarding the unfolding of human cognition in infants, empirical findings that have unmistakable relevance to our understanding of human cognitive evolution. Whether or not you find that work "convincing," a large community of primatologists, developmental psychologists and cognitive scientists find it a fertile, productive and progressive area of empirical research, a framework that guides research in a way that has yielded important discoveries and posed additional researchable questions. I find it wholly inaccurate to characterize this work as "hand waving and hedges."Any reader who wishes may begin to judge for themselves by visiting

"Wallace never argued that humans couldnít acquire higher mental attributes by means of natural selection, he simply said that such an argument lacked evidence"

At the outset you quote, approvingly I gather, Wallace as characterizing the distance between human beings and other species as "unbridgeable," and that "nothing in evolution can account for the soul of man" (my emphasis). That statement precisely is a claim that human beings can't have acquired higher mental attributes by means of evolutionary mechanisms, and not an assertion regarding the evidence.

Of course, this again is a wholly conceptual claim, one that assumes it's conclusion. And, once again, it is a claim that "humans couldnít acquire higher mental attributes by means of natural selection," a argument you say Wallace never made.

Moreover, these abilities are at bottom elaborations of the powerful human capacity for representation, both as displayed by individuals and as deployed through the shared "distributed cognition" that characterizes our way of making a living. The capacious representational abilities that characterize human cognition have everything to do with the "survival needs" associated with the way human beings have made their living throughout their history. To say otherwise is tantamount to asserting that flight can't have evolved in birds because flight has nothing to do with basic survival needs.

That said, all of these skills have been hugely elaborated by means of cultural rather than biological evolution over the past several tens of thousands of years, and therefore do have many elaborate characteristics that are traceable to processes other than natural selection.

"The observational and experiential power of Wallaceís position is underestimated."

Ultimately, again, the science lies in the very hard work of generating testable hypotheses concerning the origins of these abilities and devising empirical research (both experimental and field) capable of answering the questions posed. It is the experimental power of Wallace's ideas - or rather the lack of same - that should concern its advocates.

--------------Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."- David Foster Wallace

"Here‚Äôs a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."- Barry Arrington

Hmm... Casey Luskin has put a new post up criticising the DI's latest favourite bogeyman, Stephen Hawking. (He complains about Hawking using fallacious logic - oh the ironing.) It ends with a question... †

Quote

What else would you expect from the guy that said "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing"?

...but, oddly, Casey has not enabled comments to allow for any answers. Didn't he once say the no comments policy was not his idea? What to make of this?

--------------To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today. - Isaac Asimov

I forgot to crosspost a comment I submitted to Nelson's OD II post which has been in moderation going on 24 hours now. (I guess nobody scans submissions on the weekends). I asked why Nelson decided to use "natural selection" as shorthand for the theory of [neo-Darwinian] evolution. I pointed out that such use makes it difficult to determine whether each of his arguments is referring to the process of NS or to the theory of evolution as a whole. I asked for clarification. Maybe I should have added "please with sugar on top"

I was pleased that AML was responsive to David's letter. I have been less pleased that AML chose to issue an apology over a manuscript that is substantially a re-publication of stuff Sewell has done elsewhere. It's an issue that Casey (wisely) fails to take notice of, since it is hard to argue that re-publication is a good thing and the fact that Sewell had already published his stuff elsewhere would make it tougher to push the "censoring Darwinists" line like he does.

After some huffing and puffing, Casey gets to the point of contention:

Quote

Dr. Sewell is fully aware of objections made to the classical version of the second law of thermodynamics argument, and that's why he is not offering the classical (unsophisticated) version of the argument. In particular, Sewell accepts as true the observation that entropy/disorder can decrease when energy is input from outside the system is true--but he argues that this fact is only relevant when the what is being input tends to create the type of order we're seeking to increase.

In the peer-reviewed article he wrote for Applied Mathematics Letters, Sewell argued that the basic principles underlying the second law of thermodynamics, when properly applied, might be a bar to Darwinian evolution after all. I'll further discuss Sewell's thesis in a second article later this week.

I look forward to the next installment. Casey does physics. This should be fun.

There's an old unsophisticated argument against Darwinian evolution that goes something like this: The second law of thermodynamics holds that entropy/disorder always decreases.Darwinian evolution holds that entropy/disorder has increased.Therefore, Darwinian evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics.

Emphasis added.

Say what you will about Duane Gish, but at least Gish knew which way the 2LoT went.

But Casey inadvertently said something correct, which I highlighted in italics. Evolution means that entropy increases, as Brooks and Wiley discussed in their book, "Evolution As Entropy".

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

The journal's listed standards puts self-plagiarism into a maybe-it-is, maybe-it-isn't light. If Sewell informed them up front that, oh, yeah, this manuscript is substantially the same thing that I published before, then it is up to editorial discretion as to whether they accept it on those terms. If he didn't inform them of that fact, though, that would be against the journal's policy.

Ironic that Casey is complaining that the news of the retraction was broken by people her before the author was notified, if EN&V is now breaking this news before giving the journal a chance to put out its public statement.

Ironic that Casey is complaining that the news of the retraction was broken by people her before the author was notified, if EN&V is now breaking this news before giving the journal a chance to put out its public statement.

I stumbled across this yesterday when my Google Alert for "Intelligent Design" activated.

There was no other mention of this on the internet and the publication itself seems silent. †Of course, I believe nothing from EN&V without independent verification from knowledgable and honest sources, but I've heard nothing so far.

I'm wondering if there had been a "nuisance settlement" and the DI let confidential terms out of the bag. †Often such settlements are limited to a public announcement of "Neither side admits libaility, we did nothing wrong and we won't do it again."

It won't be the first time that the DI suffered a self inflicted gunshot wound, requiring a podiatrist's attention, in legal proceedings.

Still, it should be news that a journal rescinding an article would be sued and then pay $10,000 to the aggrieved author. †There are significant First Amendment issues at play that should have attracted attention.

--------------DS: "The explantory filter is as robust as the data that is used with it."David Klinghoffer: ""I'm an IDiot"

It won't be the first time that the DI suffered a self inflicted gunshot wound, requiring a podiatrist's attention, in legal proceedings.

Still, it should be news that a journal rescinding an article would be sued and then pay $10,000 to the aggrieved author. †There are significant First Amendment issues at play that should have attracted attention.

Once again, the $10k did not go to Sewell. The journal paid his attorney's fees. Sewell got nothing.

It won't be the first time that the DI suffered a self inflicted gunshot wound, requiring a podiatrist's attention, in legal proceedings.

Still, it should be news that a journal rescinding an article would be sued and then pay $10,000 to the aggrieved author. †There are significant First Amendment issues at play that should have attracted attention.

Once again, the $10k did not go to Sewell. The journal paid his attorney's fees. Sewell got nothing.

--------------It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it. †We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

It won't be the first time that the DI suffered a self inflicted gunshot wound, requiring a podiatrist's attention, in legal proceedings.

Still, it should be news that a journal rescinding an article would be sued and then pay $10,000 to the aggrieved author. †There are significant First Amendment issues at play that should have attracted attention.

Once again, the $10k did not go to Sewell. The journal paid his attorney's fees. Sewell got nothing.

I'm a stupid son-of-a-bitch for missing a chance to snag a beautiful line written by that moron of morons, John West, on the DI site.

In his blather about Granville, West wrote something to the effect that "Smithsonian journal editor Richard Sternberg lost his job because he published Meyer's paper." I'm quoting what I remember not the actual text which I should have snagged, but didn't because I'm a StUpiD SoB!

I'm sure that's the way the DI views Sternberg but it was so wrong in all aspects that I spit my coffee OVER my screen.

It's been changed, now, and the original is probably lost to history. It was sweet while it lasted.

As I noted in a previous article, many have argued that the second law of thermodynamics is not a valid argument against Darwinian evolution since the law holds that order can increase in an open system, and the earth and its biosphere do not comprise a closed system. †While that is correct, Granville Sewell, author of In the Beginning: And Other Essays on Intelligent Design, argues there is more to the story. †Sewell's article written for Applied Mathematics Letters argues that the second law of thermodynamics may be a problem for Darwinian evolution after all.

Casey makes some statements distancing himself from the second-law argument:

† † †

Quote

Now I am not personally convinced that the second law of thermodynamics is the right way to challenge neo-Darwinian evolution, and I prefer Dembski's formulation. †But I think that Sewell's article makes interesting points that contribute to this discussion, and it certainly did not deserve to be withdrawn just because some Darwin lobbyists didn't like its conclusion.

He defends Sewell nonetheless. (Why would a tenured professor of applied math need defending by a lawyer whose knowledge of physics ended with Physics 102?) Anyway, Casey does not advance any new arguments, just quotes a few passages from Sewell's manuscript. Here is the gist of it (emphasis mine):

† † †

Quote

Sewell observes that materialists claim that a reduction in entropy in a part of the universe can occur if it is compensated by an increase in another part. As he quotes Peter Urone: "it is always possible for the entropy of one part of the universe to decrease, provided the total change in entropy of the universe increases." Sewell then argues that this "compensation" rejoinder fails: † † †

Quote

Of course the whole idea of compensation, whether by distant or nearby events, makes no sense logically: an extremely improbable event is not rendered less improbable simply by the occurrence of "compensating" events elsewhere. According to this reasoning, the second law does not prevent scrap metal from reorganizing itself into a computer in one room, as long as two computers in the next room are rusting into scrap metal--and the door is open.

This is totally, completely wrong. It shows that Sewell does not understand thermodynamics. (Neither does Luskin, but that is hardly a surprise.)

Here is a simple counter example. Pour a glass of water and drop a cube of ice into it. The water will get colder. The motion of water molecules will slow down and its entropy will decrease. We can even calculate by how much. Suppose the temperature of water drops by 1 degree centigrade. 200 g of water gives off about Q = 0.8 joules of heat. That flow of heat takes away entropy S_w = -Q/T_w, where T_w is the absolute temperature of water. Let's say it is 27 degrees centigrade, or 300 K. Let's also convert the entropy to bits by dividing it by the Boltzmann constant k and the natural logarithm of 2:

S_w = -Q/(kT ln(2)) = -2.9 x 10^20 bits.

This is an enormously large decrease in entropy. The probability of that happening spontaneously is 2 to the power S_w, roughly one in 10^(88 000 000 000 000 000 000). This is very, very improbable. What gives?

Of course, the decrease in the entropy of water is more than compensated by an increase in the entropy of ice. Ice receives the same amount of heat but does so at a lower temperature T_i, 0 centigrade, or 273 K. Its entropy increase is S_i = +Q/T_i = 3.2 x 10^20 bits.

The total entropy change,

S_w + S_i = Q(1/T_i - 1/T_w) = 3 x 10^19 bits,

is positive because ice is colder than water, T_i < T_w.

So in this example, water goes into an incredibly less probable state as a result of cooling. That probability decrease is compensated, and then some, by the heating of ice. In fact, the full system (water + ice) ends up in a much more probable state as a result of the overcompensation.

Of course the whole idea of compensation, whether by distant or nearby events, makes no sense logically: an extremely improbable event is not rendered less improbable simply by the occurrence of "compensating" events elsewhere.

The premise is wrong. An extremely improbable event can be made less improbable if a compensating event happens nearby. The cooling of water by ice is an everyday example.

Quote

According to this reasoning, the second law does not prevent scrap metal from reorganizing itself into a computer in one room, as long as two computers in the next room are rusting into scrap metal--and the door is open.

Of course. The second law of thermodynamics does NOT prevent scrap metal from reorganizing itself into a computer in one room, period. The second law of thermodynamics has nothing to say on the subject. It deals with a total amount of entropy in a system, of which the configurational entropy of a computer is a minuscule part.

But that explanation of the physics doesn't really have anything to do with evolution. Evolution is after all a side effect of the reproductive process, which is observed, so T D can't prevent evolution without preventing reproduction, which even they know it doesn't do.

According to this reasoning, the second law does not prevent scrap metal from reorganizing itself into a computer in one room, as long as two computers in the next room are rusting into scrap metal--and the door is open.

Of course. The second law of thermodynamics does NOT prevent scrap metal from reorganizing itself into a computer in one room, period. The second law of thermodynamics has nothing to say on the subject. It deals with a total amount of entropy in a system, of which the configurational entropy of a computer is a minuscule part.

Garbage in, garbage out.

It seems to me that underlying Sewell's (and so many creationist 2LoT) argument is an equivocation of the microscopic state of molecular distribution (disorder) in a give system and the macroscopic properties associated with the system. In effect, he's trying to imply that disorder as used to describe energy and molecular distribution is the same thing as disorder of a broken vase.

--------------we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed. †Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

Actually, I was trying the program anyway becasue I am tired of getting protocols with only minor changes or verbatim quotes from Wikipedia from our students again and again. In the future I will check their writings before reading. In contrast to Dr. Sewell students caught red-handed will have to face consequences, though.

ETA pm me if you need the same with a higher resolution or pdfs.

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

Despite the high levels of skepticism of claims of arsenophilic bacteria, Nature reports that few scientists have taken the initiative to attempt to experimentally reproduce the claims made in the original paper:

† †However, most labs seem too busy to spend time replicating work that they feel is fundamentally flawed and is not likely to be published in high-impact journals. So principal investigators are reluctant to spend their resources, and their students' time, replicating the work. "If you extended the results to show there is no detectable arsenic, where could you publish that?" asks Simon Silver of the University of Illinois at Chicago, who critiqued the work in FEMS Microbiology Letters in January and on 24 May at the annual meeting of the American Society for Microbiology in New Orleans. "How could the young person who was asked to do that work ever get a job?" Refuting another scientist's work also takes time that scientists could be spending on their own research. For instance, Helmann says he is installing a highly sensitive mass spectrometer that can measure trace amounts of elements. But, he says, "I've got my own science to do."

Such admissions do not bode well for those who blindly believe in the perfectly objective, self-correcting nature of science. Indeed, in this case, it seems safe to experimentally critique these claims since so many respected scientists have already expressed vocal skepticism. Yet experiments are apparently not yet forthcoming.

Actually it bodes very well for science. †Nobody is stopping Wolfe-Simon from further supporting their argument with more experiments (that is how you answer arguments, not with a verbal nuh-uh!). †What this means is that the original paper was, how should I put it, lame.

Quote

What about areas of science where scientists are not able to express their dissent freely?

Translation: fields where we IDiots can't get unsupported crap published very easily. †Help, help, we're being expelled!

Quote

For example, who would take time to experimentally critique claims that are central to neo-Darwinian theory, especially if doing so could be dangerous to one's career?

Someone who wants to make a big splash, like Wolfe-Simon? †Jeez, an example on hand, yet Luskin ignores it with his IDiotic rhetorical question.

Quote

One hopes that science will become more self-correcting when it comes to claims made in support of materialism.

Actually, one hopes that Wolfe-Simon either backs up her claim, or admits the obvious - she is inadequate to the task. †Like IDiots have already proven to be over how many years now?

--------------"Following what I just wrote about fitness, youíre taking refuge in what we see in the world." †PaV

Well, you know, my son knows "Hitler" as an historical figure, although vaguely, but I know of Hitler from all the b/w war movies I saw as a child.

The DI is appealing to me and my parents, dead or shortly dead, as a "bad thing." Boomers like me remember the Hitler influence although we didn't experience it first hand. The Hitler hook grows less and less important with each generation.

The likelihood that my son will contribute to the DI because of "Hitler" is zero. Hitler who?

I'm still flabbergasted when I meet someone who's never heard of The Dark Side of the Moon, but that's getting more and more common, too.

edit slash & typo

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

Well, you couldn't prove it by my daughter. †She's 15, and she's fascinated by the question of why people do evil things, to the point where she's taking an elective next year in school called "Facing History and Ourselves", one of the main topics of which is the Holocaust. †I remember discussing Hitler and the Holocaust with her when she was maybe 8 or 9, and she read "The Boy in the Striped Pajamas" in (I think) 6th grade. †Hitler really does remain relevant.

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

I think I'm afraid to ask how you obtained a photo of Casey in his Favorite Dress...

`twas probably in the craigslist personals.

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

I think I'm afraid to ask how you obtained a photo of Casey in his Favorite Dress...

`twas probably in the craigslist personals.

Where's "chunkdz" when he could make himself useful?

He's in the picture.

On the far right (of course), in blue.This is like a fairy version of the cover of "Satanic Majesty's Request" or "Sgt. Pepper".

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

I began blogging four years ago for Evolution News and Views, a blog associated with the Discovery Institute, an organization for which I have deep respect and gratitude. My primary interest has been in the scientific and cultural implications of Darwinism and in the impact of militant atheism on our culture. I engaged in blog debates with quite a few atheists, Darwinists, and materialists. My interlocutors were upset with my vigorous defense of the traditional inference to design in science and with my defense of Judeo-Christian culture, and they dubbed my views "Egnorance- the statistical combination of ignorance and arrogance".

My ignorance I freely admit; I have very much to learn. My arrogance I try to keep tame. And it may not really be arrogance; those at the vanguard of New Atheism deem arrogant anyone who unapologetically challenges their views.

This new blog gives me an opportunity to discuss issues that extend beyond that which is appropriate to Evolution News and Views.

I began blogging four years ago for Evolution News and Views, a blog associated with the Discovery Institute, an organization for which I have deep respect and gratitude. My primary interest has been in the scientific and cultural implications of Darwinism and in the impact of militant atheism on our culture. I engaged in blog debates with quite a few atheists, Darwinists, and materialists. My interlocutors were upset with my vigorous defense of the traditional inference to design in science and with my defense of Judeo-Christian culture, and they dubbed my views "Egnorance- the statistical combination of ignorance and arrogance".

My ignorance I freely admit; I have very much to learn. My arrogance I try to keep tame. And it may not really be arrogance; those at the vanguard of New Atheism deem arrogant anyone who unapologetically challenges their views.

This new blog gives me an opportunity to discuss issues that extend beyond that which is appropriate to Evolution News and Views.

Welcome.

The least they could do would be to understand that whatever questions they think may be raised because there is a scientific, well founded theory of evolution, it is completely irrelevant WRT what they think and claim are secondary effects of the existence of the theory.

That is, the question of whether evolution is true or not is a different question from questions about whatever influence the theory may have on people and society.

If the theory is true, maybe our approach should comprise some reorientation among the religiously overconfident people?

But the theory is obviously true, the belief that something did something somewhere sometimes (in addition to the obvious effects of natural forces at play as we are able to show that they really are even today) , until now has not generated any evidence to support that faith. †

The fact that Egnor doesn't know or doesn't want to acknowledge that acceptance of the ToE does not equate with atheism reflects rather unfavourably on his integrity.

His religion is not everybody's religion, far from it. It just confirms what we already know, ID is religious creationism.

I began blogging four years ago for Evolution News and Views, a blog associated with the Discovery Institute, an organization for which I have deep respect and gratitude. My primary interest has been in the scientific and cultural implications of Darwinism and in the impact of militant atheism on our culture. I engaged in blog debates with quite a few atheists, Darwinists, and materialists. My interlocutors were upset with my vigorous defense of the traditional inference to design in science and with my defense of Judeo-Christian culture, and they dubbed my views "Egnorance- the statistical combination of ignorance and arrogance".

My ignorance I freely admit; I have very much to learn. My arrogance I try to keep tame. And it may not really be arrogance; those at the vanguard of New Atheism deem arrogant anyone who unapologetically challenges their views.

This new blog gives me an opportunity to discuss issues that extend beyond that which is appropriate to Evolution News and Views.

Welcome.

Let me guess: †Faux News talking points!

ETA: Checked and sure enough I was right!

--------------"Following what I just wrote about fitness, youíre taking refuge in what we see in the world." †PaV

I do like the unimaginative title of his blog, though, Egnorance. Geeze Louise, maybe Louis could start a business naming theocrat blogs. Behe could be Weasel Words and Dembski could be Coward's Corner. The Gerbil Tube for Luskin. The mind boggles.

I'll wager 100 quatloos that Egnor doesn't get even a snarky comment in a year, and 200 quatloos that his site is moribund in 3 months.

Unless ... unless he starts blogging about food. Who knows, he might corner the Blogosphere with tripe recipes.

Since information is a phenomenon uniformly associated with intelligent causes, it follows inductively that intelligent design constitutes the best -- most causally sufficient -- explanation for the information-content of the hereditary molecules DNA and RNA.

*Edited to complete the quote

--------------Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

Since information is a phenomenon uniformly associated with intelligent causes, it follows inductively that intelligent design constitutes the best

Well, that settles it, then. Everybody go home.

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

Since information is a phenomenon uniformly associated with intelligent causes, it follows inductively that intelligent design constitutes the best -- most causally sufficient -- explanation for the information-content of the hereditary molecules DNA and RNA.

*Edited to complete the quote

Their information is uniformly associated with intelligent causes.

However, the rest of the world is perfectly capable of showing their intelligence to be somewhat less than that of termites (Hi Joe!).

It's truly amazing that these people can't even see that information does not equal meaning and that information can come from random events.

Morton's demon indeed.

I won't even bother trying to correct him. The evidence is persuasive enough, ID proponents will never see it.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

1. Information is solely caused by intelligence.2. A is information.3. Therefore intelligence is the cause of A.

I think my wording is a bit clearer.

Problem of induction and all that.

1. Information is solely caused by intelligence. (In our very limited experience). And for the level of information required (does not the sound of the wind whistling through the trees tell me its windy?) we can safely replace 'Intelligence" with "man", which is both more honest and precise, but removes their opportunity for analogy wankery.

If they were to try and robustly define 'information' and 'intelligence', one suspects there are a flock of black swans waiting to pounce.

Venema's latter posts in the series discuss evidence that could count as weak, or circumstantial, evidence for common descent -- evidence such as high levels of human / ape genetic similarities. At most, however, this evidence shows circumstantial evidence for common ancestry. It says nothing about the information-generative abilities of random mutation and natural selection. Venema would have done well to heed Behe's advice in The Edge of Evolution that "modern Darwinists point to evidence of common descent and erroneously assume it to be evidence of the power of random mutation." In fact, if we factor into the analysis the possibility of common design of functional genetic programs, Venema's evidence doesn't even strongly point to common descent. But Venema ignores the possibility of common design.

Amusing that Casey, the lawyer, cites Behe, the molecular biologist on the power of random Mutation, then promptly sidesteps the inconvenient fact that Behe accepts common descent.

Venema's latter posts in the series discuss evidence that could count as weak, or circumstantial, evidence for common descent -- evidence such as high levels of human / ape genetic similarities. At most, however, this evidence shows circumstantial evidence for common ancestry. It says nothing about the information-generative abilities of random mutation and natural selection. Venema would have done well to heed Behe's advice in The Edge of Evolution that "modern Darwinists point to evidence of common descent and erroneously assume it to be evidence of the power of random mutation." In fact, if we factor into the analysis the possibility of common design of functional genetic programs, Venema's evidence doesn't even strongly point to common descent. But Venema ignores the possibility of common design.

Amusing that Casey, the lawyer, cites Behe, the molecular biologist on the power of random Mutation, then promptly sidesteps the inconvenient fact that Behe accepts common descent.

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

Venema's latter posts in the series discuss evidence that could count as weak, or circumstantial, evidence for common descent -- evidence such as high levels of human / ape genetic similarities. At most, however, this evidence shows circumstantial evidence for common ancestry. It says nothing about the information-generative abilities of random mutation and natural selection. Venema would have done well to heed Behe's advice in The Edge of Evolution that "modern Darwinists point to evidence of common descent and erroneously assume it to be evidence of the power of random mutation." In fact, if we factor into the analysis the possibility of common design of functional genetic programs, Venema's evidence doesn't even strongly point to common descent. But Venema ignores the possibility of common design.

Amusing that Casey, the lawyer, cites Behe, the molecular biologist on the power of random Mutation, then promptly sidesteps the inconvenient fact that Behe accepts common descent.

Also amusing that Casey, the lawyer, doesn't understand what circumstantial evidence is. "Circumstantial" is not synonymous with "weak." Cases can, and very often are, proven beyond a reasonable doubt through circumstantial evidence. It's basically any evidence other than witness testimony.

E.g., the bloody knife with the defendant's fingerprints on it is circumstantial evidence that he stabbed the victim. It may not prove the case in itself ("a brick is not a wall"), but you add enough similar circumstantial evidence to the mix and you manage to convince the jury. This is basic law-school stuff.

If we're talking about piecing together the evolution of a species, such as humans, in the distant past, I don't see how you could have anything but circumstantial evidence.

--------------The resurrection of Jesus Christ is one of the most well documented events of antiquity. Barry Arrington, Jan 17, 2012.

Casey is a lawyer. He's a professional deceiver. He knows what circumstantial evidence is, and he also knows it's commonly regarded as weak.

Oh, I know Casey wouldn't hesitate to intentionally misuse a term to score points (at least in his own mind). I'm just not sure he's doing that here. He wouldn't be the first attorney I've seen equate circumstantial with weak. (And you have to keep in mind that he is pretty stupid.) I guess one of us is giving him too much credit one way or the other.

--------------The resurrection of Jesus Christ is one of the most well documented events of antiquity. Barry Arrington, Jan 17, 2012.

†Also amusing that Casey, the lawyer, doesn't understand what circumstantial evidence is. "Circumstantial" is not synonymous with "weak." Cases can, and very often are, proven beyond a reasonable doubt through circumstantial evidence. It's basically any evidence other than witness testimony.

E.g., the bloody knife with the defendant's fingerprints on it is circumstantial evidence that he stabbed the victim. It may not prove the case in itself ("a brick is not a wall"), but you add enough similar circumstantial evidence to the mix and you manage to convince the jury. This is basic law-school stuff.

If we're talking about piecing together the evolution of a species, such as humans, in the distant past, I don't see how you could have anything but circumstantial evidence.

Venema's latter posts in the series discuss evidence that could count as weak, or circumstantial, evidence for common descent -- evidence such as high levels of human / ape genetic similarities. At most, however, this evidence shows circumstantial evidence for common ancestry. It says nothing about the information-generative abilities of random mutation and natural selection. Venema would have done well to heed Behe's advice in The Edge of Evolution that "modern Darwinists point to evidence of common descent and erroneously assume it to be evidence of the power of random mutation." In fact, if we factor into the analysis the possibility of common design of functional genetic programs, Venema's evidence doesn't even strongly point to common descent. But Venema ignores the possibility of common design.

Amusing that Casey, the lawyer, cites Behe, the molecular biologist on the power of random Mutation, then promptly sidesteps the inconvenient fact that Behe accepts common descent.

Although he managed to pass the low bar in California and possibly Washington, which is like the Arkansas of the northwest, Luskin has never "worked" as a lawyer, does not represent the DI or anyone as counsel and demonstrates the barest understanding of, well, anything.

If it weren't for the DI paying him in nickels his most frequently uttered phrase would be "May I take your order, please."

Not stupid? Casey????? Please, pull the other one!

p.s. That said, I've never known Luskin to be vicious like some of the other denizens of the DI. But, that's because viciousness requires cunning which Luskin lacks in spades. He's just a poor, dumb foot soldier. I wonder how many times in staff meetings Luskin blurts out, "I like bowling!"

Venema's latter posts in the series discuss evidence that could count as weak, or circumstantial, evidence for common descent -- evidence such as high levels of human / ape genetic similarities. At most, however, this evidence shows circumstantial evidence for common ancestry. It says nothing about the information-generative abilities of random mutation and natural selection. Venema would have done well to heed Behe's advice in The Edge of Evolution that "modern Darwinists point to evidence of common descent and erroneously assume it to be evidence of the power of random mutation." In fact, if we factor into the analysis the possibility of common design of functional genetic programs, Venema's evidence doesn't even strongly point to common descent. But Venema ignores the possibility of common design.

Amusing that Casey, the lawyer, cites Behe, the molecular biologist on the power of random Mutation, then promptly sidesteps the inconvenient fact that Behe accepts common descent.

Courtesy of this discussion I had just discovered the gem of Americana that is Thayer's opus major, and was about to spend my evening writing a parody of it featuring monobrows and unresolved sexuality, the whole pivoting on a witty pun on 'Mudville'.

Attorneys that are not stupid know that eyewitness testimony is the weakest, and that circumstantial evidence can be irrefutable.

Say DNA evidence in a rape case, as opposed to identification in †a lineup.

Casey is not stupid. He avoided the Dover case, where a win would have been significant.

Casey was at the Dover trial, basically as a PR shill for the DI. I don't recall him being consulted by the Thomas More Law Center people, though he may have had some casual conversations with them. Mind you, I didn't develop a high regard for the TMLC crew, and they apparently weren't going to Casey for advice.

Attorneys that are not stupid know that eyewitness testimony is the weakest, and that circumstantial evidence can be irrefutable.

Say DNA evidence in a rape case, as opposed to identification in †a lineup.

Casey is not stupid. He avoided the Dover case, where a win would have been significant.

Casey was at the Dover trial, basically as a PR shill for the DI. I don't recall him being consulted by the Thomas More Law Center people, though he may have had some casual conversations with them. Mind you, I didn't develop a high regard for the TMLC crew, and they apparently weren't going to Casey for advice.

My take is that Casey is the only true believer in the DI crowd. The rest of the them seem to be in it for the bucks or the culture war and know that their evidence is not that strong.

Casey was at the Dover trial, basically as a PR shill for the DI. I don't recall him being consulted by the Thomas More Law Center people, though he may have had some casual conversations with them. Mind you, I didn't develop a high regard for the TMLC crew, and they apparently weren't going to Casey for advice.

I recall the first (and only) time I met Casey was at UC San Diego when Jon Wells was giving a talk Casey's shadow ID club sponsored. That was also the first time I met you.

Casey was desperate to 1) have a copy of our anti-ID handout, and 2) learn the real-life identity of Nick Matzke. I provided the latter, but I don't remember who gave Casey the handout that we all were handing out to anyone who walked by.

He thought it was a real 'score.'

--------------"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

Casey was at the Dover trial, basically as a PR shill for the DI. I don't recall him being consulted by the Thomas More Law Center people, though he may have had some casual conversations with them. Mind you, I didn't develop a high regard for the TMLC crew, and they apparently weren't going to Casey for advice.

I recall the first (and only) time I met Casey was at UC San Diego when Jon Wells was giving a talk Casey's shadow ID club sponsored. That was also the first time I met you.

Casey was desperate to 1) have a copy of our anti-ID handout, and 2) learn the real-life identity of Nick Matzke. I provided the latter, but I don't remember who gave Casey the handout that we all were handing out to anyone who walked by.

Casey was at the Dover trial, basically as a PR shill for the DI. I don't recall him being consulted by the Thomas More Law Center people, though he may have had some casual conversations with them. Mind you, I didn't develop a high regard for the TMLC crew, and they apparently weren't going to Casey for advice.

I recall the first (and only) time I met Casey was at UC San Diego when Jon Wells was giving a talk Casey's shadow ID club sponsored. That was also the first time I met you.

Casey was desperate to 1) have a copy of our anti-ID handout, and 2) learn the real-life identity of Nick Matzke. I provided the latter, but I don't remember who gave Casey the handout that we all were handing out to anyone who walked by.

He thought it was a real 'score.'

That sneaky Nick Matzke hiding his identity by using his real name.

Actually, the handout in response to Wells was authored by Nick as "Nic Tamzek". Nick stopped using the pseudonym shortly after that, IIRC.

According to the DI, the butterfly is the new (cue radio voice) ICON OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN (/cue radio voice)!

Yes, the flagellum of the bacteria, let's face it, is not very photogenic. How about a nice butterfly? Ohhhhh, look at the wings, the eyes, the throax and the little hooky feet! Must have been DESIGNED because Charles Darwin couldn't make a butterfly!

DUH!

And which better scientists to decry the design of the butterfly and talk about all it's biological parts than Paul "I'm not a scientists nor do I play one on TV" Nelson and Ann "What, me science?" Gauger.

Seriously, I hope the DI realizes eventually that their ultimate mascot is the shark since they've jumped it so many times.

Over at EvoNews or Klinghoffer Wanks Again is this charming invitation to Luskin's opus minimus on how there ain't no stinkin' increase in Biologikal Informashun:

Quote

We don't routinely open the comments feature at ENV because of the staffing requirement that comes into play when we do, cleaning up after Darwinists who don't know how to have a discussion on science without descending to the gutter.

Over at EvoNews or Klinghoffer Wanks Again is this charming invitation to Luskin's opus minimus on how there ain't no stinkin' increase in Biologikal Informashun:

Quote

We don't routinely open the comments feature at ENV because of the staffing requirement that comes into play when we do, cleaning up after Darwinists who don't know how to have a discussion on science without descending to the gutter.

I say "fuck 'em."

The first rule of decorum is to insult your guests before they even arrive.

--------------Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

Early in his response, titled "Educating Casey on Publishing," Dr. Elsberry concedes my point that he self-plagiarized his recent paper in Synthese.

Quote

Apparently, since Granville Sewell has published his arguments in peer-reviewed scientific papers, and then tried to republish some prior material in his now-withdrawn Applied Mathematics Letters (AML) paper, Sewell is supposedly guilty of some grave sin that Elsberry hasn't committed.

Quote

As for the "gaming the system" accusations, whatever that means I see no evidence that Granville Sewell did it.

So SELEX experiments do not demonstrate that selection can occur prior to the origin of life. Rather, they show that in the absence of natural selection, intelligence is the only other selective agent. Since there was no natural selection prior to the origin of life, this doesn't leave many options for the materialist.

Thanks.

Casey

--------------Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

Dollo's law holds going forward as well as backward. We can state the experimentally based law simply: "Any evolutionary pathway from one functional state to another is unlikely to be traversed by random mutation and natural selection. The more the functional states differ, the much-less likely that a traversable pathway exists."

--------------Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

Dollo's law holds going forward as well as backward. We can state the experimentally based law simply: "Any evolutionary pathway from one functional state to another is unlikely to be traversed by random mutation and natural selection. The more the functional states differ, the much-less likely that a traversable pathway exists."

Dollo's law holds going forward as well as backward. We can state the experimentally based law simply: "Any evolutionary pathway from one functional state to another is unlikely to be traversed by random mutation and natural selection. The more the functional states differ, the much-less likely that a traversable pathway exists."

A TADL tale?

So, does Behe mean Tiktaalik or something more recent?

Quote

For example, whales do not re-evolve gills, even though they are aquatic creatures who descended from fish, because gills are a lost, complex trait in that lineage.

--------------Church burning ebola boy

FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me.

PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

Finally, Behe erroneously equates ďevolving non-deterministicallyĒ with ďimpossible to evolve.Ē He supposes that if each of a set of specific evolutionary outcomes has a low probability, then none will evolve. This is like saying that, because the probability was vanishingly small that the 1996 Yankees would finish 92-70 with 871 runs scored and 787 allowed and then win the World Series in six games over Atlanta, the fact that all this occurred means it must have been willed by God.

Finally, Behe erroneously equates ďevolving non-deterministicallyĒ with ďimpossible to evolve.Ē †He supposes that if each of a set of specific evolutionary outcomes has a low probability, then none will evolve. †This is like saying that, because the probability was vanishingly small that the 1996 Yankees would finish 92-70 with 871 runs scored and 787 allowed and then win the World Series in six games over Atlanta, the fact that all this occurred means it must have been willed by God.

This [Jack Scanlan's Panda's Thumb post] has put us in such a good mood we're almost tempted to open the great Black Gate that allows comments so all the other Darwinists can write in and tell us how much they love us.

...Rod reminded me of a saying from the Talmud. Attributed to Rabbi Yochanan, it makes an observation about the Hebrew Bible: "Wherever you find mention of the greatness of the Holy One, Blessed Be He, there you will also find mention of his humility."

Rod insisted on this point about God's humility, a kind of shyness or modesty, almost, that seems to be a characteristic of his personality.

It makes you wonder if Rod or David or Rabbi Yochanan have ever actually read the Hebrew Bible. †The words 'shyness' and 'modesty' don't exactly spring to mind when you read the following:

Quote

Job 38

1 Then the LORD spoke to Job out of the storm. He said:2 ďWho is this that obscures my plans † with words without knowledge? 3 Brace yourself like a man; † I will question you, † and you shall answer me.

4 ďWhere were you when I laid the earthís foundation? † Tell me, if you understand. 5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! † Who stretched a measuring line across it? 6 On what were its footings set, † or who laid its cornerstoneó 7 while the morning stars sang together † and all the angels[a] shouted for joy?

8 ďWho shut up the sea behind doors † when it burst forth from the womb, 9 when I made the clouds its garment † and wrapped it in thick darkness, 10 when I fixed limits for it † and set its doors and bars in place, 11 when I said, ĎThis far you may come and no farther; † here is where your proud waves haltí?

12 ďHave you ever given orders to the morning, † or shown the dawn its place, 13 that it might take the earth by the edges † and shake the wicked out of it? 14 The earth takes shape like clay under a seal; † its features stand out like those of a garment. 15 The wicked are denied their light, † and their upraised arm is broken.

16 ďHave you journeyed to the springs of the sea † or walked in the recesses of the deep? 17 Have the gates of death been shown to you? † Have you seen the gates of the deepest darkness? 18 Have you comprehended the vast expanses of the earth? † Tell me, if you know all this.

19 ďWhat is the way to the abode of light? † And where does darkness reside? 20 Can you take them to their places? † Do you know the paths to their dwellings? 21 Surely you know, for you were already born! † You have lived so many years!

22 ďHave you entered the storehouses of the snow † or seen the storehouses of the hail, 23 which I reserve for times of trouble, † for days of war and battle? 24 What is the way to the place where the lightning is dispersed, † or the place where the east winds are scattered over the earth? 25 Who cuts a channel for the torrents of rain, † and a path for the thunderstorm, 26 to water a land where no one lives, † an uninhabited desert, 27 to satisfy a desolate wasteland † and make it sprout with grass? 28 Does the rain have a father? † Who fathers the drops of dew? 29 From whose womb comes the ice? † Who gives birth to the frost from the heavens 30 when the waters become hard as stone, † when the surface of the deep is frozen?

31 ďCan you bind the chains[b] of the Pleiades? † Can you loosen Orionís belt? 32 Can you bring forth the constellations in their seasons[c] † or lead out the Bear[d] with its cubs? 33 Do you know the laws of the heavens? † Can you set up Godís[e] dominion over the earth?

34 ďCan you raise your voice to the clouds † and cover yourself with a flood of water? 35 Do you send the lightning bolts on their way? † Do they report to you, ĎHere we areí? 36 Who gives the ibis wisdom[f] † or gives the rooster understanding?[g] 37 Who has the wisdom to count the clouds? † Who can tip over the water jars of the heavens 38 when the dust becomes hard † and the clods of earth stick together?

39 ďDo you hunt the prey for the lioness † and satisfy the hunger of the lions 40 when they crouch in their dens † or lie in wait in a thicket? 41 Who provides food for the raven † when its young cry out to God † and wander about for lack of food?

On and on without a single humble word until the end of chapter 41, when the soliloquy mercifully ceases.

--------------And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

Klinghoffer goes on to explain that God's shyness is the reason that the evidence for intelligent design is so, shall we say, understated:

Quote

...God too has characteristics that you might not expect. Among them is the quality, surprising to find in the transcendent source of all existence, of being rather shy...

This may explain a lot of things. For example, why so much of the Bible gives a superficial impression of simplicity, even primitiveness or dry legalism. Impatient readers assume that's all there is to it, never realizing what lies beneath the surface but that can only be uncovered by subtle probing of hints and nuances, hidden and delicate pointers that give way suddenly, unexpectedly on limitless vistas of wisdom from another world.

It may explain too why the historical redemption that Jews and Christians wait for is so long in coming. A situation where all of mankind turns its eyes to you, fully revealed, is not a prospect that a shy deity would necessarily want to see rushed to fruition.

It may, finally, explain why the evidence of nature's design is elusive to lots of people. Often we wonder why Darwinists can never seem to get it. They champ and cry and try to shout us down with taunts that we are "creationists." They can never tire of boisterously waving Judge Jones in our face.

The signature in the cell, in the genetic code, in protein synthesis, in what Behe calls irreducibly complex features of biology, in the Cambrian explosion and the rest of the fossil record, in cosmology, in individual types of creatures -- from butterfly metamorphosis to the history of whale evolution -- whatever piece of the argument for intelligent design that you want to think of, it is all very lightly imprinted. The "signature" is in a sense misnamed because you can't make out the name of the signer. It takes patience and study to see any of this...

By no means does nature hit you over the head and shout "I am designed! There is a designer! And the designer's name is the LORD!"

--------------And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

Klinghoffer goes on to explain that God's shyness is the reason that the evidence for intelligent design is so, shall we say, understated: †

Quote

...God too has characteristics that you might not expect. Among them is the quality, surprising to find in the transcendent source of all existence, of being rather shy...

This may explain a lot of things. For example, why so much of the Bible gives a superficial impression of simplicity, even primitiveness or dry legalism. Impatient readers assume that's all there is to it, never realizing what lies beneath the surface but that can only be uncovered by subtle probing of hints and nuances, hidden and delicate pointers that give way suddenly, unexpectedly on limitless vistas of wisdom from another world.

It may explain too why the historical redemption that Jews and Christians wait for is so long in coming. A situation where all of mankind turns its eyes to you, fully revealed, is not a prospect that a shy deity would necessarily want to see rushed to fruition.

It may, finally, explain why the evidence of nature's design is elusive to lots of people. Often we wonder why Darwinists can never seem to get it. They champ and cry and try to shout us down with taunts that we are "creationists." They can never tire of boisterously waving Judge Jones in our face.

The signature in the cell, in the genetic code, in protein synthesis, in what Behe calls irreducibly complex features of biology, in the Cambrian explosion and the rest of the fossil record, in cosmology, in individual types of creatures -- from butterfly metamorphosis to the history of whale evolution -- whatever piece of the argument for intelligent design that you want to think of, it is all very lightly imprinted. The "signature" is in a sense misnamed because you can't make out the name of the signer. It takes patience and study to see any of this...

By no means does nature hit you over the head and shout "I am designed! There is a designer! And the designer's name is the LORD!"

No, oddly enough it hits you over the head and says life evolved without intelligent direction.

But if you properly "prepare" your mind to "accept" design, you can always close your eyes and mind to the evidence of evolution, and say that it was all designed.

Exactly why the Lord of Truth would make minds that "work" like that isn't clear, however God's shyness no doubt explains that, too.

...God too has characteristics that you might not expect. Among them is the quality, surprising to find in the transcendent source of all existence, of being rather shy...

Shy?

We're talking about the Great White Sky-Dude who tossed Adam and Eve out of Eden for disobeying orders, who turned people into pillars of salt for looking at him the wrong way, who wiped out whole cities and races because they wouldn't grovel before him and who finally drowned out almost all life on Earth in an amazing fit of pique.

"Shy" is not the first word that comes to mind to describe him.

†

Quote

By no means does nature hit you over the head and shout "I am designed! There is a designer! And the designer's name is the LORD!"

Really? †Are you serious? †The whole case for design in Nature from Paley onwards has been that it's so blatantly obvious that only a fool could deny that it screams out for explanation.

Someone needs to have a quiet word with Corporal Klinghoffer about staying on-message.

†

Quote

They can never tire of boisterously waving Judge Jones in our face.

That's because before the trial we heard a lot of bluster along the lines of

†

Quote

I therefore await the day when the hearings are not voluntary but involve subpoenas that compel evolutionists to be deposed and interrogated at length on their views.

[...]

What I propose, then, is a strategy for interrogating the Darwinists to, as it were, squeeze the truth out of them.

But all we actually heard at Dover then is what we've heard from the DI ever since - the sound of pips squeaking.

...God too has characteristics that you might not expect. Among them is the quality, surprising to find in the transcendent source of all existence, of being rather shy...

Why should this quality (assuming your god exists and actually does have it) be surprising? Why would any characteristic in a god be surprising?

Quote

This may explain a lot of things. For example, why so much of the Bible gives a superficial impression of simplicity, even primitiveness or dry legalism.

Why, because all shy people are primitive and superficial? Are they all passive females too? Any other erroneous generalizations you'd like to imply?

Quote

Impatient readers assume that's all there is to it, never realizing what lies beneath the surface but that can only be uncovered by subtle probing of hints and nuances, hidden and delicate pointers that give way suddenly, unexpectedly on limitless vistas of wisdom from another world.

You mean like this?

Quote

It may explain too why the historical redemption that Jews and Christians wait for is so long in coming. A situation where all of mankind turns its eyes to you, fully revealed, is not a prospect that a shy deity would necessarily want to see rushed to fruition.

Wait...what? I thought Christians had received their redemption. Isn't that the whole point of Christianity vs Judaism?

Quote

It may, finally, explain why the evidence of nature's design is elusive to lots of people.

Why, because shy people design things that don't look designed? Or is it that shy people's designs are more subtle - and thus creative - which then begs the question of what you implied earlier about shy people being primitive and superficial. Can you make up your mind?

Quote

Often we wonder why Darwinists can never seem to get it.

Clearly because we don't carry the baggage of your presupposed generalizations about shy and in-your-face people, to say nothing of lacking any expectations about the characteristics that gods and nature must have.

Quote

They champ and cry and try to shout us down with taunts that we are "creationists." They can never tire of boisterously waving Judge Jones in our face.

Oh please...blame that fiasco on yourselves. It's not our fault you all imploded and looked inane. Further it isn't our fault that none of your representatives brought any actual evidence for this "obvious" design you keep yammering about. We keeping waving Judge Jones in your face to remind you of those facts.

Quote

The signature in the cell, in the genetic code, in protein synthesis, in what Behe calls irreducibly complex features of biology, in the Cambrian explosion and the rest of the fossil record, in cosmology, in individual types of creatures -- from butterfly metamorphosis to the history of whale evolution -- whatever piece of the argument for intelligent design that you want to think of, it is all very lightly imprinted. The "signature" is in a sense misnamed because you can't make out the name of the signer. It takes patience and study to see any of this...

Uh huh...see Kitzmiller vs Dover (see what I did there). You can make this claim all you want, but when push comes to shove, you guys have no way to substantiate the claim.

Quote

By no means does nature hit you over the head and shout "I am designed! There is a designer! And the designer's name is the LORD!"

There in lies your problem then, huh?

--------------we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed. †Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

Quiz time:Who is being quoted here, and who is the speaker referring to?

†

Quote

... That's what often happens when people who are adamantly opposed to an idea publicize their own definitions of its key termsóthe terms are manipulated to wage a PR battle.

...If they want to show their theory can account for it (good luck!), then they'll have to do so by relevant experiments and detailed model buildingónot by wordplay and sleight-of-hand.

...This is clearly not a fellow who wants to look into the topic too closely.

Let's see... Dawkins talking about Dembski? †PZ, about Meyer? †Miller on Behe?Those would be †wrong. †But the last one is close.

--------------The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein †(H/T, JAD)
If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

If i remember my analogy formulation right, it should have read:Darwinian Biology Is to Intelligent Design as Spelling Is to the Art of Writing

for as we all know

Quote

In one case you're looking at the micromechanics of how you put letters together to make words but in the other you are looking at higher-level principles that allow good writing to take place, the principles you have to master in order to write well.

If the post title is anything to go by, good writing is not taking place. It so happens that the post stems from an ID: The Future podcast titled "Key Figures in Intelligent Design Measure the Impact of Discovery Institute", which could be analogized as "a man measures the size of his own dick."

You won't know it from reading the New York Times, an NCSE-staffer blog, or Judge Jones's manifesto, but ID has already gained the kind of scientific legitimacy we'd expect from a young (and vastly underfunded) scientific field. With scientific productivity leading the way, ID's future is looking bright.

You wouldn't know it from reading the Wedge Document, either. Here are the DI's 5-year scientific goals for the period 1999-2003:

Quote

Scientific achievements:

An active design movement in Israel, the UK and other influential countries outside the US

Ten CRSC Fellows teaching at major universities

Two universities where design theory has become the dominant view

Design becomes a key concept in the social sciences

Legal reform movements base legislative proposals on design theory

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

--------------And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

Anyway, some of us who write for ENV got a laugh this past Wednesday morning when we arrived at the office and someone pointed out that it was the sixth anniversary of the Dover ruling....

I call bullshit on that one. As obsessed with Dover as they are and they somehow didn't notice the anniversary? Yeah. Right.

--------------I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moronAgain "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

EN&V's comment policy may prevent my comment from seeing the light of the public:

Quote

Comment Policy

All comments are held for moderation. The debate over evolution and intelligent design attracts all kinds, including those who detract from the conversation by their obnoxious behavior. In order to maintain a higher level of discourse, we will not publish comments that use foul language, ad hominem attacks, threats, or are otherwise uncivil.

emphasis mine

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

EN&V's comment policy may prevent my comment from seeing the light of the public:

Quote

Comment Policy

All comments are held for moderation. The debate over evolution and intelligent design attracts all kinds, including those who detract from the conversation by their obnoxious behavior. In order to maintain a higher level of discourse, we will not publish comments that use foul language, ad hominem attacks, threats, or are otherwise uncivil.

emphasis mine

You're right - It will never see the light of day.

Everyone knows that facts have a well-known scientific bias.*

* adapted from A Great American Stephen Colbert

--------------Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

You won't know it from reading the New York Times, an NCSE-staffer blog, or Judge Jones's manifesto, but ID has already gained the kind of scientific legitimacy we'd expect from a young (and vastly underfunded) scientific field. With scientific productivity leading the way, ID's future is looking bright.

You wouldn't know it from reading the Wedge Document, either. Here are the DI's 5-year scientific goals for the period 1999-2003: †

Quote

Scientific achievements:

An active design movement in Israel, the UK and other influential countries outside the US

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

Can anybody identify what is displayed on the slide left of Behe? And what could the writing on the white board relate to?

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

Thanks for the information. I can't help the feeling that I am getting old.

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

It is quite long, not new but does anybody understand the comments from the audience during Robert Marks' talk on information, genetic algortims, Avida and weasel?

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

It is quite long, not new but does anybody understand the comments from the audience during Robert Marks' talk on information, genetic algortims, Avida and weasel?

I suspect it is another manifestation of Bob Marks' juvenile sense of humor. †He is not giving this lecture to a live audience, so he's probably filling in what he imagines is going through the minds of his target audience. †If so, he obviously doesn't think much of the intellectual capabilities of his audience, or maybe those are the thoughts that go through his mind. It kind of follows along the lines of those disturbing drawings of "people" that he populates his slides with. †I have a very hard time looking at those. The artwork is so starkly ugly, they remind me of adolescent male pen-and-ink doodling. †And then he puts the same cartoon on several successive slides, like he's proud to show them off. †They make me wince, and want to look away.

--------------The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein †(H/T, JAD)
If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

Is There Any Conflict Between Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics?

Sewell's arguments have been shredded timeandagain before before. However, Lloyd dared to publish his work in The Mathematical Intelligencer (Volume 34, Number 1 (2012), 29-33) thus in the very same journal Sewell sneaked the first version of his article in and the editors refused to publish Sewell's reponse.

On a side note: Is it really a good idea to attack a journal run by the same publisher who is currently re-reviewing Biological Information: New Perspectives in which Sewell is repeating his claims.

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

Jerry Coyne, in his polemic Why Evolution is True, scoffs at those 91 percent who find his analysis unconvincing. He writes, "True, breeders haven't turned a cat into a dog, and laboratory studies haven't turned a bacterium into an amoeba ... but it is foolish to think that these are serious objections to natural selection."

Of course these are, in fact, serious objections; Dr. Coyne doesn't get to choose what data is and isn't objectionable to others. Major speciation via undirected processes is the crux of the Darwinian narrative. If it can't be replicated, this objection is an example of what logicians call a "defeater." If you, an intelligent actor using skill, can't breed a cat into a different genera [sic], then presumably and reasonably nature can't do this either.

--------------And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

With the appearance of Homo erectus, though, many traits changed all at once. Below the neck, these hominins were virtually indistinguishable from a modern human. Their legs, lumbar spine, arms, shoulder girdle, pelvis and hips, rib cage and feet now were those of a long-distance runner with an efficient well-balanced gait

How efficient? And what the hell is a "well-balanced gait"? The features that would have made H. erectus good endurance runners did not appear all at once. We see some of these features in earlier hominins such as H.habilis. But they first appear as a total package in H. erectus.

With the appearance of Homo erectus, though, many traits changed all at once. Below the neck, these hominins were virtually indistinguishable from a modern human. Their legs, lumbar spine, arms, shoulder girdle, pelvis and hips, rib cage and feet now were those of a long-distance runner with an efficient well-balanced gait

How efficient? And what the hell is a "well-balanced gait"? The features that would have made H. erectus good endurance runners did not appear all at once. †We see some of these features in earlier hominins such as H.habilis. †But they first appear as a total package in H. erectus.

Yes, and what the hell does

Quote

Faith the Dog is not evidence for the ability to evolve bipedalism, she is evidence for achievement in the face of adversity.

have to do with anything?

Quote

Australopithecine fossils were ape-like in posture and gait. Their ribcage, hips, legs, spine, and feet were closer to chimp than human. While these hominins may have spent some time on the ground, they were not built for speed or running.

So Australopithicines contain some traits linking them to the common ancestor of chimps and humans, and some traits linking it to later Homo? This is called, unless I am mistaken, a transitional fossil.

Luskin has been flogging the same two articles Gauger cited for years, guess he was indisposed and let Ann have a chance to misunderstand them...

--------------Church burning ebola boy

FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me.

PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

Really. You will have to admit that it is flanked by gaps on both sides. ;)

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

Jerry Coyne, in his polemic Why Evolution is True, scoffs at those 91 percent who find his analysis unconvincing. He writes, "True, breeders haven't turned a cat into a dog, and laboratory studies haven't turned a bacterium into an amoeba ... but it is foolish to think that these are serious objections to natural selection."

Of course these are, in fact, serious objections; Dr. Coyne doesn't get to choose what data is and isn't objectionable to others. Major speciation via undirected processes is the crux of the Darwinian narrative. If it can't be replicated, this objection is an example of what logicians call a "defeater." If you, an intelligent actor using skill, can't breed a cat into a different genera [sic], then presumably and reasonably nature can't do this either.

Jerry Coyne, in his polemic Why Evolution is True, scoffs at those 91 percent who find his analysis unconvincing. He writes, "True, breeders haven't turned a cat into a dog, and laboratory studies haven't turned a bacterium into an amoeba ... but it is foolish to think that these are serious objections to natural selection."

Of course these are, in fact, serious objections; Dr. Coyne doesn't get to choose what data is and isn't objectionable to others. Major speciation via undirected processes is the crux of the Darwinian narrative. If it can't be replicated, this objection is an example of what logicians call a "defeater." If you, an intelligent actor using skill, can't breed a cat into a different genera [sic], then presumably and reasonably nature can't do this either.

Why not go the whole hog and demand a crocoduck?

And if a ducodile is discovered, evolution (which predikts crocoduck) is teh disproved!

--------------"Following what I just wrote about fitness, youíre taking refuge in what we see in the world." †PaV

--------------The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein †(H/T, JAD)
If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

Wasn't Mario their IT guy for a while? †Also haven't heard from Anika "the tank" Smith for a while. I guess they finally found real jobs. Too bad about Luskin.

Hannah Maxson, Mark Hausam... man, those were the days, hey?

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

This whole series on the controversy of continental drift, and how eerily it mirrors today's Darwin vs. design dispute, has been absolutely scintillating.

So, a significant amount of evidence, from an unrelated field that supports evolution and you still can't be bothered to actually TALK ABOUT INTELLIGENT DESIGN?

According to JoeG, ID is not anti-evolution. Is that true? If so, then why do you spend so much time attacking evolution instead of looking for support for ID?

If it's not true, then you should go explain that to JoeG and a few other of the ID supports, because they are saying a lot of wrong things.

BTW: My most often used statement applies here. Even if you totally disprove evolutionary theory in all it's particulars and all it's supporting evidence, that doesn't automatically make ID (or creationism or anything else) right. Only positive supporting evidence can do that... and you still aren't looking for it.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

This whole series on the controversy of continental drift, and how eerily it mirrors today's Darwin vs. design dispute, has been absolutely scintillating.

So, a significant amount of evidence, from an unrelated field that supports evolution and you still can't be bothered to actually TALK ABOUT INTELLIGENT DESIGN?

According to JoeG, ID is not anti-evolution. †Is that true? †If so, then why do you spend so much time attacking evolution instead of looking for support for ID?

If it's not true, then you should go explain that to JoeG and a few other of the ID supports, because they are saying a lot of wrong things.

BTW: My most often used statement applies here. Even if you totally disprove evolutionary theory in all it's particulars and all it's supporting evidence, that doesn't automatically make ID (or creationism or anything else) right. †Only positive supporting evidence can do that... and you still aren't looking for it.

Ogre, to be charitable, he _is_ looking for it, in the same way as a drunk looks for his car keys under the street lamp. In this case, a Bible shaped street lamp.

This whole series on the controversy of continental drift, and how eerily it mirrors today's Darwin vs. design dispute, has been absolutely scintillating.

So, a significant amount of evidence, from an unrelated field that supports evolution and you still can't be bothered to actually TALK ABOUT INTELLIGENT DESIGN?

According to JoeG, ID is not anti-evolution. †Is that true? †If so, then why do you spend so much time attacking evolution instead of looking for support for ID?

If it's not true, then you should go explain that to JoeG and a few other of the ID supports, because they are saying a lot of wrong things.

BTW: My most often used statement applies here. Even if you totally disprove evolutionary theory in all it's particulars and all it's supporting evidence, that doesn't automatically make ID (or creationism or anything else) right. †Only positive supporting evidence can do that... and you still aren't looking for it.

Ogre, to be charitable, he _is_ looking for it, in the same way as a drunk looks for his car keys under the street lamp. In this case, a Bible shaped street lamp.

Is that the same joke as the officer asking why he's looking for his keys under the street lamp and the guys says, "Well, I dropped my keys in the street way over there, but the light is over here."

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.